Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Libyan War

The Libyan war is now being treated as a “cautionary tale,” but the lessons that are being drawn are all wrong:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

The article never mentions that the new Libyan government was firmly opposed to the deployment of a foreign stabilization force. This suited the intervening governments well enough, since there was no appetite in any Western country for another prolonged occupation of a Muslim country. There was no desire to revisit the issue later on either side. The intervening governments could declare victory and forget about Libya, which they did, and the new Libyan government didn’t have to be put in the position of being perceived as their puppet. Putting a U.S. or NATO stabilization force in Libya would have made Western soldiers the targets of attacks, and it is not hard to imagine how it could have made Libya even more violent and unstable than it is today. The error from the start was in pursuing the collapse of the regime, which guaranteed that the country would be wracked by disorder and violence whether Western forces were on the ground there or not. If Western governments don’t know how to do state-building in the countries they have previously occupied, there is no reason to think that they would have been any more successful in Libya. Since the U.S. and its allies don’t know how to repair the damage that they do with their wars for regime change, the right lesson to draw is that they shouldn’t be waging such unnecessary wars. A “low tolerance for risk” is not the problem. Attacking and overthrowing a government are quite enough “overkill and overreach” on their own, and that is what needs to be carefully avoided in the future.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 13 comments

13 Responses to Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Libyan War

Over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq; in Libya, no Americans died. Further, our commitment to Libya cost us almost 800 times less than our commitment to Iraq.

Neither was a success in terms of transforming either country into a peaceful democracy (which is the bigger point), but since this lesson will go indefinitely unlearned by our foreign policy elite, I like my stupid wars small and cheap.

“Arms trafficking from Libya ‘is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,’ an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.”

Also, if it was such a bad idea to support rebels in Libya without supplying the requisite “Democracy-building tool kit”, then why the hell are we doing the same thing in Syria?

Also, no mention in the article of the damage done to our own democracy by a president who declared that dropping bombs on people does not constitute hostilities.”

It illustrates that this kind of messianic hubris isn’t limited to conservatives and is all too prevalent among progressives and liberals. The impulse to remake the world and the blindness to any limits to realizing that desire know no party label.

This is the political reality that enables neocons and liberal internationalists to kill and harm people in other countries and profoundly damage America’s own interests.

As long as no significant numbers of Americans die, the US public does not really care. Or at least does not care enough to drive the culprits out of office.

Every once in a while these bums will overstep their limits and get us into a protracted ground war with American casualties such as Vietnam or Iraq. Then there is backlash. But within a year or two they start spouting off the same moronic rhetoric about global leadership, democracy promotion, responsibility to protect, and America the Indispensable Nation.

And the electorate lets them get away with it, as long as the tactics are limited to economic blockades and aerial bombardment of foreigners.

I could of course read this. But that doesn’t tell me your take on the question. I do have some idea myself what you mean, but I was hoping to hear it from you.

So ok. The War Powers Resolution, to the extent that it does not limit the executives use of the military as commander and chief, it really is a courteousy notice that doesn’t have much legal authority. And further the argument is self defeating. Force by the very definition is not a democratic act. Persuasion by force makes democratic principle moot. So of course it is undemocratic. If i have to use force, democracy is going to take a back seat. Contending that it hurts democracy 360 is of course a peculiar position since force, especially force against other nation states or non state actors is not a democratic act.

if Congress had any unified intention against the use of force they could do what Congress did to Pres. Roosevelt’s ‘gunpoint diplomacy’ to China, if I recall correctly. Simply refuse to foot the bill or even attempt to impeach. The problem with impeachment is that there is little debate on executive authority on matters of the military. It is one of those nexus’s of power that requires astute leadership and throughout our history there have been complaints about it’s use but little on the authority, which remains a vital executive tool.

As Sy Hersh’s reporting has revealed, Ambassador Stevens (among Americans killed in Libya – and an ambassador’s life seems from the furore worth about 10,000 ordinary Americans) was deeply involved in a covert operation to supply untracable Libyan weaponry to Syrian jihadists, off the books of democratic accountability. All the other leakage of weaponry fomenting conflagrations elsewhere, all the consequent death and destruction, are just collateral damage to the imperial regime change itch.
A certain fatigue with seemingly intractable and repetive violence and conflict, along with ignorance of the contributing factors and history, led many in both the larger public and among the foreign policy elites to believe that a war in Iraq or any other Mideast country (which one a matter of convenient opportunity) was worthwhile just to stir things up to break the seeming impasse – things couldn’t possibly get worse, changing the equation would give the opportunity for America to make their world anew. That has proven naive and criminally negligent, on a war crime scale if there were any way to enforce accountability. Ironically, though, that stasis that was really the product of earlier imperial decisions, really has unleashed forces recreating that world – but not in the interests of the west and at an unbelievably high negative cost to the people there. It may even have been too much for us, in the same way that Afghanistan became the final resting place for exhausted Soviet ambition.

“If President Obama believes, as presidents tend to, that the War Powers Act of 1973 is an inappropriate limitation on his constitutional war-making powers, then he should come out and say so . . .”

Excuse me. No executive needs to say that. And there’s no reason to say so. As you yourself state, ” . . . as most . . . tend to.” If it is commonly understood then there’s no point. It’s an official, we would like to discuss the question – that’s not unethical or even bad, but it is trumped. The historical record is supported by the Constitution.
______________________________________________________

I am not going to quibble over the inane comments to justify making war on others. The rhetorical devices are generally meant to soften the unpalatable realities of ripping another human being to shreds. It is the forever tragedy of our humanity and signifies our failure — utter failure. Such rhetoric is used by all of in addressing tough issues. The founders engaged in the same devices. The position on imprisoning human beings — they are not people, they are property. The Constitution and the debates over the Declaration of (independence) War are perfect examples of rhetorical devices, ‘spoonfuls of sugar to make the medicine go down’ master pieces of such language. Not people property – it’s embedded in our political and social existence as citizens. You want to challenge the contradictions, and the language used to promote hypocrisy that is another question. But having little to do with the War Powers Resolution. Now on a purely gut check level, if you intend on celebrating the fourth day of July as the day of our declaration to be free (from what, only heaven knows) by making war against the crown while maintaining others in bondage, then I think you must forego the argument being attended here.

“I have no idea what this sentence means: “Force by the very definition is not a democratic act.”

Once I start dropping bombs, all discussion about democracy is moot. Democracy has been removed from the table. A comment that says dropping bombs hurts our democracy has no meaning. Dropping bombs there doesn’t do much for changing out democratic practice here. One can claim that the use of force is not democratic to whit I must respond in the affirmative – that is the point. I am forcing a choice by force. Forcing consent is not democratic. Societies that claim democratic principles engage in undemocratic behavior. Your position can be made in the abstract existential impact on one’s psyche’ but it’s hard to make that case in the real. And for the contention to have force i was looking for examples or an argument in the real here in the US. One might point to the Patriot Act and other governmental choices obtained via Congressional assent to suspend or end individual freedoms or other over reaches of government beyond the constitution, but I was looking for that from you. You chose not to do so.

As for,

“But I do know what Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution says.”

That has served side by side executive authority over the military. As I stated before it is that nexus of power for which the lines shift. But short of an actual amendment they will remain part of the natural push and pull on the checks and balances. The duties of both the executive and congress remains generally clear in my view. Congress declares war states os in letters etc., makes rule military conduct and the like, raises monies — and the executive has authority over the military as Commander and Chief —
If the military is commanded to X, she will do X. Congress will either fund the matter or they will not. If there are rules of conduct by which military is to behave, while being commanded to do X, she will adhere to those rules. If the Navy is commanded to go to China she will go to China. Should Congress choose not to fund it’s return, while under command of the executive, the military should find some means to fulfill it’s demands and explain why she cannot do so.

None of which explains, how dropping bombs there, despite the rhetorical gymnastics to do so, damages our democracy here.

@scott – – Libya was steadily becoming integrated into western business etc circles prior to the outbreak of the unrest in Benghazi, and the smashing of the Libyan government was viewed by a number of observers, including myself, as likely to foster years of chaos.